Rosen, a right-winger who is described by the Jewish Policy Center as “one of the key power brokers in the Israel business and political communities,” reportedly owns a home in Jerusalem (I wonder where) and is a former national chairman for American Friends of the Likud. And he’s not shy about his views, either–he has written opinion pieces for Arutz Sheva, the settler news outlet which is no stranger to unabashedly racist views on Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims.

Take this piece on Arutz Sheva, written in February 2007. Rosen writes that “Abbas and his cohorts in Fatah and the PLO or PA are evil.” But it gets worse: it’s not just that the Palestinian leadership is “evil.” It is “[Palestinian] society that has a serious pathological problem that cannot be rectified through negotiations and roundtable discussions.”

In another piece, Rosen claims that “this is, was, and will always be, a holy war.” Rosen then goes on to address “Mr. Abbas,” telling him:

All attempts to destroy the Jewish people have failed, as will yours if you try to force Israel to give up our holy cities, if you try to destroy our religion, our belief. Just as the Nazis failed in their holy war, so will you.

Pretty racist, delusional and paranoid–but he’s a powerful man who has the ear of Romney. You can bet Rosen is another donor who will press Romney (if elected) to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, “Israel’s capital,” as Romney would have it.

Imagine for a second if the shoe was on the other foot. If Barack Obama had a well-connected, wealthy donor who had called Israeli society “pathological” and Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu “evil.” Obama wouldn’t last a day in US politics, and there’d be a media feeding frenzy.

But when it comes to Palestinians–say whatever you want.

About Alex Kane

Alex Kane is a freelance journalist and graduate student at New York University's Near East Studies and Journalism programs. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.

140 Responses

/Imagine for a second if the shoe was on the other foot. If Barack Obama had a well-connected, wealthy donor who had called Israeli society “pathological” and Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu “evil.” Obama wouldn’t last a day in US politics, and there’d be a media feeding frenzy./

This sites welcomes tons of commenters that call Israeli society and leaders
by far worse names so i am not sure i see your problem here?

exactly, eljay. the comment is illustrative of olerg’s narcissim and willful ignorance. since he comments on this site, this site must be hugely important and influential, otherwise why would he be here? the problem for olerg and other zionist commenters is their inability to recognize the illness growing in their pet project. a state in which even agnostics and atheists believe that they have a divine right to land is delusional.

OlegR’s mentality is clearly that of a 5th grader. That’s how he takes criticism of Israel. He cannot differentiate the power differential between the occupier and the occupied so why expect him to make a similar contextual differential here with respect to both the nature of criticism and the power behind it?

It requires empathy. Not Lifetime, movie channel -style empathy.

Any Jewish nationalist is too wrapped up in self-worship at the Holocaust altar and the history of Jewish suffering to see what’s going on in their own backyard, hence you get all this f***in noise about Darfur or Syria or Libya or the Congo (except of course when Iraq was on the agenda).

They cannot see that their talks and views were echoed by Germans in the 1930s and into the Reich. That is, they only see their own suffering…and seek revenge by doing unto Others what was done unto them. Only they “do it” to weaker, unrelated others. It’s like the man berated unjustly by his boss biting his tongue until he can get home and kick the family dog.

When Israelis are criticized they act like Good Germans: “You must hate us for judging negatively what we do!”

Sorry, but the Jewish State is not being dragged to the woodshed because it’s Jewish. It’s slammed because it’s acting like an arrogant a-hole country wherein Ashkenazis emulate Nazis pre-1942. And by justifying their crimes they are telling the world they “understand” why the Reich “had to” do what it did, too.

Of course, in the Internet iPhone Era it can’t gas Arabs in 3 years. So it slow cooks them for decades.

/Which commenters on this site are highly-influential “key power brokers”/

I have no idea eljay since most of you are anonymous but since the difference between you all and this guy is only your potential influence and not your high moral ground then i would prefer that you all stay as marginal as this site that apparently
condones your rhetoric or at the very least lets it slide,
something i find to be extremely hypocritical.

Do you not understand the statement, or are you playing wilfully dumb? Or is it you just make random comments without any connection to the article, just so you can see your name? Your ‘comment’ makes no sense at all, but presumably your ego doesn’t care about that. And you have nothing to say, again, about the substance of the article.

Here this will make you start salivating, OlegR: seems as if a fair number of Zionists are sociopaths. Go ahead, beat your head against the wall, jump up and down, have heart palpitations, scream loudly and yell anti-semitism, it will make me feel delighted!

Calling Israeli society and Israeli leaders ‘far worse’ names is a relative statement and you’ve made it without any qualifiers.

Start citing some examples and then you can open your mouth to judge whether we are beiing unfair.

What is unquestionable is the abject stupidity with which Zionist commentators like OlegR spams MW with his uninformed and ignorant nonsense on a whole host of issues. Just the other day there was a thread reporting in the damages won by Rae Abileah after she was attacked by a rabid Zionist maniac at an AIPAC conference.

OlegR’s predictable response was to mock her pain, because any pain that isn’t suffered by a Zionist Jew or a member of his tribe (political affiliation) is insignificant.

People like you are so thoroughly biased and employ all kinds of logical fallacies and cognitive dissonance and contradictions in your bowel movements passing as an attempt at intellectual discussion.

We are not on JihadWatch or AtlasShrugged or on the comments section of Haaretz or Arutz Sheva or any other Zionist hub of Internet discussion and journalism and commentary.

You came here. You came here for a reason. Anti-Zionists find no reason to engage sociopaths or the pathologically narcissistic. We aren’t filming Silence of the Lambs 4 or something so your psychosis up-close-and-personal is not important to us whatsoever.

You’re simply not on our level. Stick to spamming the antisemitism button, baddies.

>> Cliff: Amigo … People like you are so thoroughly biased and employ all kinds of logical fallacies and cognitive dissonance and contradictions in your bowel movements passing as an attempt at intellectual discussion. . . . You came here. You came here for a reason. Anti-Zionists find no reason to engage sociopaths or the pathologically narcissistic. … You’re simply not on our level. Stick to spamming the antisemitism button …

Cliff, you appear to have seriously misread amigo’s post. He wasn’t siding with OlegR – he simply quoted and then responded to OlegR’s post.

‘Oleg–we are just ordinary folks poisting facts about Israel,s policies towards Palestinians.Romney and his right wing racists have power.’

There is indeed a difference; but on reflection, I think that point is secondary.

More important is that Oleg is inserting the implicit idea that Israel’s cause is as defensible as that of its opponents.

I don’t think that’s so. If this were the 1930’s, that prominent presidential advisors were attempting to defend Naziism would hardly be something that all should docilely accept on the grounds that others were criticizing Naziism.

It does keep coming down to whether one thinks Israel is good or evil.

There are issues where it can be fairly readily demonstrated that there is something to be said for both sides of the argument — school integration, universal health care, abortion, and gun control all come to mind. One can get plenty vehement either way — but one has to be completely blind not to see that one’s opponents do have legitimate grounds for holding a different opinion.

I don’t think that’s so when it comes to Israel. I have yet to hear a valid argument for it. It really is wrong. It is demonstrably evil — and it’s also demonstrable that those who would defend it invariably have to resort to falsehood in order to do so.

moderators and others take note. this comment is an excellent example of how professional trolls can derail a thread by hijacking the first comment.

great post alex. you’re right of course, there’d be a media feeding frenzy if obama had a crucial racist funder. the zio press is tone deaf when it comes to racist discourse about palestinians but kowtows to fears of being associated with anti semitism to the point of ignoring apartheid and ethnic cleansing if the offenders are zionist or jewish.

Sorry Annie we are in different time zones.
This is wonderful that each time you don’t/can’t deal with my argument
you turn to troll accusations.
I have explicitly told you on numerous occasions
if you all want me silenced then it’s completely in your power to ban
me on this site.

Btw since we are talking about rules of a polite debate Moderators
that run various sites or blogs usually try to refrain from ad hominem
and intimidation attacks on commentators but try to run a fair show.

There is no room to deal kindly or considerably to those who support murder, rape, ethnic cleansing, torture, theft, and a long list of other disgusting atrocities. You should be treated fairly to the extent that you are allowed space to bring forth your racist views and arguments, but that’s about as far as it goes. Don’t expect to get any type of decent accommodation or reception here beyond that, from either other commentators or the moderators themselves. Once you can achieve that level of basic human dignity and consistency where you can condemn and speak out against all atrocities and oppression and injustice, no matter which side of the camp it comes from, then at that point people will shift their attitudes and show you common courtesy and respect. As we cannot find it within ourselves to respect a mass murderer, rapist, racist, bigot, etc.. of any nationality or ethnic background or political affiliation, we likewise cannot extend our respect to those who tacitly or overtly support these disgusting atrocities and abominable acts and policies, especially when they are internalized into the very institutions and system of the State that you blindly support.

/If the defenders of Israel have anything worth saying, would they please say it?/
The question should also be who is listening don’t you think,
or do you deem yourself or others on this site as perfect neutral moral beings
without any kind of bias towards the subject.

I’ve never tried to hide my ‘bias’ on this topic neither have most other posters here (the exception being Ziotrolls who at first try to present an “evenhanded” approach before the mask slips and their ethnic-supremacism shows through). I am very happy to state that I am biased against the nation practicing Apartheid. At least MY bias is built on facts not on propaganda, lies and emotional manipulation based on the Holocaust which is totally and utterly unrelated to the Palestinians.

“This sites welcomes tons of commenters that call Israeli society and leaders”
by far worse names so i am not sure i see your problem here?Forget this site commentators. Avigail Abarbanel, an (ex) Israeli psychotherapist, wrote extensively about Israel’s psychosis.” The Disordered Psychology of Israel” is one book. “Israel’s Growing Insanity” and ” Survival Instinct or Jewish Paranoia?” are two others. People have noticed. Not only on this site. In Israel of all others.

Israel is indeed quite insane. However compared to the Arab and other Muslim countries, it is not just sane. It is a paradise.
So Romney’s statement should be considered relative.
Compared to Israelis, Arabs are indeed backward.
Then Israelis, Arabs, Americans, and Asians, are all terribly backward compared to the real human potential.

“However compared to the Arab and other Muslim countries, it is not just sane. It is a paradise.”

Israel is widely perceived as a psychotic country. Arab countries have more faults than I can enumerate but they certainly aren’t psychotic. Backwardness, in various degrees according to country, yes. Insanity? NO!

If about Jews, yes that is true. Subtle and explicit anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments pass in mainstream politics where antisemitism would not. (i.e. McCain saying- Obama is no Muslim, he’s a decent family man!)

But people can and do say things like this all the time about Netanyahu and Israeli society, here as well. Obama friend Khalid Rashidi once joked that the only way to get rid of Netanyahu would be to “drive a stake through his heart.”

cliff, you can’t deny him the right to clutch the ‘new/old anti-semitism’ tightly to his chest. it’s some comfort, after all, to believe that anti-semitism lurks in the hearts of all gentiles, every criticism a symptom of murderous intent. and what’s the blood of palestinian women and children shed for political gain when compared with a vampire reference to a pathological personality like netanyahu?

I do not believe that anti-Semitism is in the hearts of all non Jews. Half of my family is not Jewish. Nor is my partner.

So, please (and Cliff) just take responsibility for what you believe and accept some statements of others at face value, minus your projections. The vampire reference is about rhetoric not blood. Of course human blood is worth more than human discourse.

I simply disagree with Alex’s statement here, though believe that if it was “Jews” there certainly be greater outrage comparative to “Arab” or “Muslim.”

But people can and do say things like this all the time about Netanyahu and Israeli society, here as well. Obama friend Khalid Rashidi once joked that the only way to get rid of Netanyahu would be to “drive a stake through his heart.” — tokyobk

“Khalid Rashidi” was probably referring to “Nenjamin Betanyahu,” who might be an actual vampire, if he were to exist. Thank you for your typically-addled Zionist ‘contribution’ though.

You mixed up the name–Rashid Khalidi. And anyway, Obama ran away from his friend during the 2008 election. He did so not because Khalidi had said or done anything shameful, but because he was pandering to anti-Palestinian bigotry. Here is what he said at a synagogue in Boca Raton in the 2008 campaign when questioned about his friend Khalidi–

“”You mentioned Rashid Khalidi, who’s a professor at Columbia,” Obama said. “I do know him because I taught at the University of Chicago. And he is Palestinian. And I do know him and I have had conversations. He is not one of my advisors; he’s not one of my foreign policy people. His kids went to the Lab school where my kids go as well. He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel’s policy.”

“To pluck out one person who I know and who I’ve had a conversation with who has very different views than 900 of my friends and then to suggest that somehow that shows that maybe I’m not sufficiently pro-Israel, I think, is a very problematic stand to take,” he said. “So we gotta be careful about guilt by association.”

“If about Jews, yes that is true. Subtle and explicit anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments pass in mainstream politics where antisemitism would not. (i.e. McCain saying- Obama is no Muslim, he’s a decent family man!)

But people can and do say things like this all the time about Netanyahu and Israeli society, here as well. Obama friend Khalid Rashidi once joked that the only way to get rid of Netanyahu would be to “drive a stake through his heart.”

Notice that even when you get to choose the comparison, it still doesn’t work. McCain’s remark implicitly insulted all Muslims; Rashidi’s alleged remark referred to only one Jew.

Surely we are permitted to criticize individuals even if they happen to be Jewish? It would be nice if someone would drive a stake through Netanyahu’s heart. In what way is that remark anti-semitic?

For the subject bundler, it’s linked most directly to viewing the state of Israel as the most important state in the world, even though he’s an American, because he views Israel as an insurance policy for Jews no matter where they are born–his core reference point is the Shoah, which he has an amazingly clear view of–check this out, from Rosen’s “Letter To My Children”:

“One very special thing my father taught us was to care about Jews all over the world, in every nook and cranny. As you know I spend lots of time worrying about Israel and Jews in trouble. The Jews who survived felt and feel that the whole world abandoned them – for 6 years the concentration camps existed, thousands of Jews were tortured and murdered every single day and no one, no one did a damn thing. Simply amazing. And the argument that no one knew is just not true.”link to jpundit.typepad.com

Perhaps, when he said, “It is “[Palestinian] society that has a serious pathological problem that cannot be rectified through negotiations and roundtable discussions,” he was projecting his own pathological problem on the whole Palestinians society?

His private internal logic likely goes something like this: “They killed mine for no reason over there, so we can kill any of them, individually or in a group, over here, because we have a right to survive at any cost. These Palestinians don’t care about us, they are just more of the same, and they are in our way.” The notion lumps all non-Jews as expendable in a line parallel with the more often publicly seen Jewish Israeli subset
addressing the Palestinians as all Arabs, and visa versa, e.g., “You begrudge us one little country and you Palestinians have tons of Arab countries you can go to.”

It’s frightening that this mind-set motivates a key bundler for the Mitt Romney campaign to be the next POTUS. He mirrors the casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, and Bibi too. Dick and Jane have no clue they are totally expendable in the eyes of such people with so much influence on America. I’m sure Mitt thinks he’s not viewed as expendable by such Israel Firsters, or, more like, Mitt’s willing to enlist in the Israel First force at all costs, costs even Barry Obama is reluctant to risk–he’s that anxious to be POTUS.

…thousands of Jews were tortured and murdered every single day and no one, no one did a damn thing

I’ve heard this before. It’s a profound insult to the Allies who were dying by the hour to defeat Germany’s ambitions. As a child in London I vividly recall the sudden wail of sirens, being plucked from bed, wrapped in a blanket and hurried to settle among hundreds on the local subway platform while doodlebugs whined overhead. And the sudden silence, like between lightening and thunder, while people held their breaths for the shudder that announced it had landed somewhere, over that way…by the docks…by the river…by St Paul’s.

@NickJOCW
Yep; too there are a lot of unsung “righteous gentiles,” who were btw, fighting German occupation themselves. The head of the ADL is not the only one who was saved by one. Just think, Rosen tells his children, as his own legacy spirit to them, that “no one did a damn thing.” Imagine what a Palestinian thinks about this.

sorry, helena, but your criticism is misdirected. tokyo burger king was referring to Khalid Rashidi not Rashid Khalidi. i have no idea who khalid rashidi is, but if burger king took the time to insinuate that he’s an anti-semite, you just gotta believe it’s true.

I hereby grovel and apologize for mistaking the first letters of the distinguished professor who joked that perhaps driving a stake in Netanyahu would make him go away, the reason I disagreed with Alex’s point.

According to this web-page:
>> Khalidi discusses U.S. foreign policy and the Israeli Likud party in this clip from a December 15, 1998 radio interview. At the 2:15 mark, he ”jokingly” suggests that a stake should be driven into Benjamin Netanyahu “like he is a vampire”.

“PS why is it a smear? It is heated political dialogue. And he said it.”

And did the death-rate from stakes through the heart go up in Israel after he said it. So what is your point? That he said something somewhat improvident, out of frustration? As opposed to Zionist speech which is always moderate, pacific and measured?
I just cannot get over these people. They bring out the shibboleths and the icons, and cover in contumely anyone who won’t bow to their idols, or excuse their mixed metaphors.

(I have to say I’m surprised by the amount of flack you’re getting for the fairly innocuous point you made in your original post.)

with all due respect, eljay, it’s not an innocuous comment. it’s a comment laiden with historical context, and clearly intended to lead readers to the conclusion that kahlid rashidi, or rashid khalidi (really no need to get the name right when accusing someone of anti-semitism), is an anti-semite, thus counterbalancing rosen’s pathology. (some time back i had done a fair amount of research into the racism inherent in various ‘vampire’ tales, and found much of the scholarship to be pretty shaky, particularly the analysis that finds that ‘the vampire’ is exclusively a metaphor for ‘the jew’. i suppose if bk was interested, he could calculate the body count in stoker’s ‘dracula’ and compare it to netanyahu’s to determine if the metaphor is/was unfair. but now i see that he is backpeddling, acknowledging that the vampire metaphor referred to netanyahu’s ability to resurrect himself from the ‘political dead’, and was not a reference to the ‘blood thirsty jew’ libel. )

Helena, here is the link. link to stopliberallies.com At about 2:10 of the 1998 radio interview, Khalidi says of Netanyahu, “Hopefully we’ve seen the back of this character, but I don’t know, he’s like a vampire, you’d have to drive a stake through him to get rid of him.” tokyobk’s problem is not that he made it up, but that he is repeating an absolutely absurd accusation against Khalidi. If you listen to it, it is quite unobjectionable. Khalidi is talking about what an evil character Bibi is, and is mostly optimistic that his career is at an end. But, he adds, who knows – the guy keeps coming back, like a vampire. Of course, in retrospect, Khalidi was right to be cautionary, but the bigger problem is that there is this data base out there of “bad things said by Arabs,” and Israel’s defenders love to mine this treasure trove to excuse Israeli actions and smears. I don’t know if tokyobk has actually listened to this tape. If he has not, he has no business claiming that there is something meaningful. If he has, he’s a liar for implying that Khalidi said a bad thing. Considering tokyo’s embarrassing reversal of the man’s name — Khalid Rashidi — I’d bet on the former; he’s negligent in spreading someone else’s lies rather than fabricating this one himself.

Even worse is tokyo’s suggestion of any remote equivalence between Khalidi’s quip and the hateful, racist slime of Rosen. That’s really offensive, both trivializing Rosen’s depravity. and defaming Khalidi. And he’s usually one of the less offensive commenters on this site! Helena’s demand that he grovel and apologize is quite appropriate.

Tokyo, you are being disingenuous at best. You said: people can and do say things like this all the time about Netanyahu and Israeli society, here as well. Obama friend Khalid Rashidi once joked that the only way to get rid of Netanyahu would be to “drive a stake through his heart.” By “things like this,” you clearly referred to what Rosen said, and thus you were drawing an equivalence between the Khalidi and Rosen quotes. Now you acknowledge that the Khalidi quote was not objectionable. So neither was the Rosen quote? Seriously?

It’s not like the London gaffe, and it’s not a blunder: it’s an audition for Sheldon Adelson and the other Zionist racists. And he passed with flying colors. What did he gain? Millions for deluging Florida, Ohio, Minnesota, Nevada with xenophobic lunacy. What did he lose? All those people out there who feel strongly that Palestinians are actual human beings who were still entertaining a vote for Romney. I.e., no one.

But if he’s the bad cop, Barry’s the good cop, and they’re both out to screw the indigenes on behalf of the colonists.

jim, one of the public services (NPR . . PRI .. PBS?) had recently done a bit of an expose on adelson, a truly reprehensible character, making billions off gambling, and everything that goes with it, while doing everything in his power to undermine the rights of employees to union representation. but compare this expose with bob’s siegel’s moist, giddy, almost child-like fauning over the another siegels’ ‘time share’ empire.

Very true, and succinct. If AIPAC was PALPAC, the results would be the contrary. I think Truman acknowledged this, when he accepted Zionist cash bags (and signed the letter unilaterally recognizing Israel in defiance of his entire State Dept and Diplomatic Corps) as he was bluntly told if he didn’t, Dewey would get those huge bags of campaign cash, combined with his comment that he had no Arab constituency. He also had no Arab First MSM.

This, of course, reinforces the antisemitic idea that “Jews” are forever trying to take over the world via financial means.

The question arises: where are the bazillions of so-called “liberal” Jews who remain silent? Why do they act like Good Germans who see-hear-speak no evil so long as “their team” wins?

How will Jews collectively react if/when the “Jewish State” attacks Iran, the world turns to shite, and angry people world-wide seek revenge for scapegoats who “started it”?

Just sayin’.

Or will Jews– who forever say German citizens never should have empowered Hitler– understand how average Teutons were “helpless,” too? Will they finally admit nothing could have stopped the Holocaust, just like nothing can be done to rein-in Israel’s “reign of errors”?

Palestine can’t be any more pathological than the US and Israel….not even close.

As Greenwald illustrates:

Extremism normalized

How Americans are efficiently trained to acquiesce to ideas once deemed so radical as to be unthinkable
Glenn Greenwald

“After Dick Cheney criticized John McCain this weekend for having chosen Sarah Palin as his running mate, this was McCain’s retort:

Look, I respect the vice president. He and I had strong disagreements as to whether we should torture people or not. I don’t think we should have.

Isn’t it amazing that the first sentence there (“I respect the vice president”) can precede the next one (“He and I had strong disagreements as to whether we should torture people or not”) without any notice or controversy? I realize insincere expressions of respect are rote ritualism among American political elites, but still, McCain’s statement amounts to this pronouncement: Dick Cheney authorized torture — he is a torturer — and I respect him. How can that be an acceptable sentiment to express? Of course, it’s even more notable that political officials whom everyone knows authorized torture are walking around free, respected and prosperous, completely shielded from all criminal accountability. “Torture” has been permanently transformed from an unspeakable taboo into a garden-variety political controversy, where it shall long remain”>>>>>>

Did I say the US was becoming Nazi Germany with just a change of characters?
Yes I did.
Who ‘respects” someone who advocates torture? Our politicians have made torture a simple matter of ‘disagreement.’ No more right and wrong—just differences of opinion….the road to hell is paved with same.
I want to put torturer advocates in the hospital for long time….that may be pathological of me, but at least it’s better pathology.

3. Engage in conventional military retaliation against whatever targets seem to be somehow relevant.

4. Resort to various illegal policing tactics — torture, among other things.

Actually, we wound up doing 2,3, and 4. However, unless one is prepared to advocate (1), one cannot argue that we shouldn’t have chosen 2, 3, or 4.

Personally, if I’d had my druthers, I’d have gone primarily with (3) — so yeah, I would have condoned torture. Or if not, something equally reprehensible.

It wasn’t a win-win. Something unpleasant had to be picked. Even if it was just ‘watch for diving planes.’ So McCain’s statement wasn’t a non-sequitur. He was merely noting that Cheney made a different choice than he would have.

It’s not legitimate to just condemn torture. In this case, you have to say what you would have done instead. Arguably, your choice might have been better — but whatever your recipe, it would have had consequences.

“It’s not legitimate to just condemn torture. In this case, you have to say what you would have done instead.”

Wow, that veneer of civilisation gets torn away so easily. Especially when it’s a tough-guy pretext on the web. What a reprehensible outlook, and the sheer shallowness it takes to promulgate it in that fashion, jeez what a show.
And BTW, no one has to excuse being against torture. We already know, know from history where torture will go if it is unleashed. But of course, with your racial, or patriotic, or what?Religious? (Tell me Colin, which one makes you torture-proof? Or is your upright life-style simply beyond question?) exceptionalism, I guess you’re confident it’ll never be you on the downhill end of the water-board. Yeah, I know Colin, if you did something wrong, you would want to be tortured, so you would confess. And of course, people will never torture because people are suspected of thinking the wrong thoughts. Thank God that’s never happened!

“…Wow, that veneer of civilisation gets torn away so easily. Especially when it’s a tough-guy pretext on the web. What a reprehensible outlook, and the sheer shallowness it takes to promulgate it in that fashion, jeez what a show…”

And you go on…

I note that you fail to say what you would have done instead.

Absent that, you’re simply taking the utterly unreasonable position that you want the response to be somehow beyond criticism in all respects — without specifying what that response might be.

Colin: So under item (3) the US attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (Iraq) and another that offered to give up bin Laden if the US provided evidence that he was in fact the perpetrator:

Until someone can provide any evidence that supports the claims that the use of torture produces better results (or even any, however marginal)…

Until someone makes a convincing case for breaking international law and conventions one’s country not only signed, ratified and helped draw up but that also condemned other countries, supported and called for the prosecution of those other leaders who allowed torture…

Until someone can justify why they should be awarded some special status allowing them to ignore all of the above, then yes, it is most definitely very ok and legitimate to condemn torture and expect the US to, like every other country, fulfill its obligations, respect the promises its made and apply the same standards to its own conduct that it enforces and expects from all other nations.

As absolutely tragic as 9/11 was, it is NOT in any way a legitimate justification for ignoring all of that. The burden of proof falls/fell on those who support/supported the illegal use of torture despite having condemned it and having continued to condemn it as it applies to everyone but themselves.

The truth is (and the evidence shows) that in reality torture does NOT produce better results at all but in fact often only produces false statements. The evidence has shown that interrogation without the use of torture can produce as much, and often more, than can be achieved with torture.

Of course, the more reasonable alternative to all of your “recipes”, with or without torture, and a much more logical approach would have been to use law enforcement instead of militarism.

There was no justification in declaring wars against countries when neither the Taliban or (obviously) Saddam’s regimes or governments had a) declared war against the US; b) threatened the US in any way, or even c) anything to do with the attacks of 9/11 !!

Of course the war in Iraq didn’t even have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, so even your justification for the use of torture doesn’t extend to all of the Iraqis who were tortured, abused, raped and murdered anyways.

Nevermind that an overwhelming number of prisoners that were apprehended in Afghanistan and originated from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia etc… were in fact not dangerous terrorists but unlucky bystanders who were victims of greedy individuals wanting to get their hands on the hefty bounties the US was paying out indiscriminately.

Nevermind that that torture was used on hundreds, if not (more likely) thousands of mostly innocent men, but also against a “child soldier”, a teenager who was 15 years old at the time and remains imprisoned in Guantanamo after a kangaroo trial convicted him. Hundreds of men remain in Guantanamo after more than 10 years and without having ever been charged of anything, some because their treatment (torture) makes a conviction unlikely and most because they are actually innocent but have either no country to which they can now be released to and some because their release would involve an embarrassing admission of the US’ criminal and deceptive detainment of so many for so long while they were completely innocent. But I digress…

While we in “the West” simply ignore the magnitude of wrongs and crimes that were committed on our name, under the pretense of fighting “the war on terror TM”, this is not lost on Muslims & Arabs around the world. If you think Palestine evokes anger, indignation, hatred towards Israel (and the US for its support) as well as ideal recruiting propaganda for terrorists organisations, then consider that Iraq, Afghanistan, and now also drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Philippines etc, imagine if what magnitude the US’ continued campaign of international terrorism evokes the same in Muslims and Arabs around the world.

I’d hardly consider that a “win/win” situation or decision and I’m rather baffled how anyone could seriously refer to it as such!

I find it really odd when I read comments here that condemn Israel and proceed to defend or justify the US’ extreme attacks around the world, as if they’re somehow perfectly acceptable, desirable, justified or any different than Israel’s crimes.

Does this mean that Palestinians don’t deserve to die at the hands of Israel but Iraqis, Afghanis, Yemenis etc, DO deserve to die at the hands of Americans, Brits, Canadians, Australians etc? Is this what you and others are saying?

I apologize if this is long but I’ve read this or similar kind of reasoning in the comments and it always strikes me as completely hypocritical to point fingers at Israel and Israelis (and Zionists), while offering one’s support for the same criminal actions and aggression on an even larger scale by the US (or England etc), even using the same justification and claiming it necessary for “security” reasons! How delusional! I needed to say so once and for all so here it is.

It doesn’t achieve security for Israel and it doesn’t achieve it for the US either. Their governments actions actually makes it LESS safe for Israelis AND Americans and I think some people need to give some thought to why they assume or claim the two can or should be separate or why they should be considered any different. Israel wants land, the US wants oil and money (among other things, of course). The rest is exactly the same, even the fear that is used to manufacture support from citizens and convince them of the necessity and righteousness of their country’s wars.

If you condemn Israel’s actions towards the Palestinians or the Lebanese – I’m very sorry but you cannot also defend or support the US’ identical aggression, crimes and wars. You can certainly not defend its use of torture either.

But you guys seem to forget, it’s not really called “torture” when it’s us who does it to “them”. It’s instead called “enhanced interrogation techniques”, or some other fancy Orwellian label.

I’ve mentioned this before on another thread, there is ample evidence that the US has trained/supported other terrorist groups on US soil. Two immediate examples that come to mind are the MEK, which even the US gov’t has listed as a terrorist organization, and which they were training in Nevada during the Bush regime a few years back. Monetary and intelligence swaps and other forms of training/support still continues under Obama (see Greenwald for extensive evidence of this), going up to the highest levels of the US military and intelligence establishment. Another case in point would be the School of the Americas in the state of Georgia, going back to at least the early 1990s, which also trained/armed and in other ways supported some of the worst terrorist thugs from Latin America, many of whom have been accused and convicted of torture and other brutal atrocities and war crimes in their respective countries.

Based on the above, would it be permissible for either Iran or let’s say ElSalvador, Guatemala, Honduras, or Cuba to carry out military operations against the US of A, because US continued support and sponsoring of terrorism?

Conveniently, I can respond to Straightline, Elephantine, and Averroes with exactly what I said to Mooser — and with what I said in the first place:

‘I note that you fail to say what you would have done instead.’

The point — which few if any of the critics of the ‘war on terror’ address — is that there wasn’t a morally pleasing response to 9/11. God knows, I am not saying that we picked the best possible package, but it is not sufficient just to criticize what was done.

You have to say what you would have done instead.

It’s like if I have a house fire. I could…

1. Live in the ruins.

2. Fix the damage myself.

3. Get ripped off.

4. Battle interminably with the insurance company.

All of these approaches would at least potentially produce results that were open to criticism. But it is not sufficient to simply offer the criticism. You have to state what you would have done instead.

So great: you’re against torture. Well, aren’t we all? What does that mean? That you were in favor of doing nothing? Of installing a massive police state? Of mounting conventional military operations?

What? Pick something. Don’t just sit passively on the sidelines and carp about everything that was done. What would you have done, and would it have actually worked better?

Until someone can provide any evidence that supports the claims that the use of torture produces better results (or even any, however marginal)…”

Isn’t that really a red herring? I’m perfectly prepared to grant that torture may not work, but let’s assume it does.

Then what? Are you for it, or against it? Is your only argument against torture that it doesn’t work?

And in particular, in the context of 9/11, are you prepared to refrain from using it if it means you have to let al Qaeda run around instead?

And if you are not prepared to let al Qaeda run around, what would you suggest instead?

To my mind, the whole thing did boil down in principle to either covert nonsense with all the ethical chicanery that implies, or massive conventional military action. Well, we picked both, and muffed both, and it was all thoroughly disgusting — but you can’t just fold your arms and refuse to say what you would have done instead.

That won’t cut it. The Twin Towers are rubble, thousands are dead — what do you propose?

Ahhh so we do away with all pretenses of morality and justice in the face of a terrorist attack or war. How convenient. That reveals immensely the depth and fortitude and resilience of your democratic values and principles. At the slightest touch of turmoil and tribulation, all wishy-washy moral and ethical values need to be put on the back-burner or shoved under the carpet. That’s pragmatism for you! Well here are some practical steps that could have been taken, within the confines and parameters of both international law and conventions, and that also would run parallel to (and not contradict) your own alleged principles and values as an American:

– Immediately start dismantling all US military bases on foreign lands, especially and primarily in the Middle East
– Immediately cease giving Israel unconditional support and assistance and aid, unless and until it abides by all of the requisite UN resolutions and international law generally
– Immediately cease support (financial and otherwise) for the brutal and illegitimate dictatorships of the Middle East, and elsewhere around the globe
– Work, through the venues and channels of the UN, and WITH the Taliban, to pursue necessary legal means of apprehending, arresting, interrogating (I think it doesn’t need mentioning that I don’t mean torture here), and trying those who may have been responsible for the attacks on 9-11, and also to prevent further potential attacks. As you would with any other criminal persons and organizations.

Otherwise this whole holier-than-thou jingoistic American exceptionalism business will be seen for exactly what it is, a farce and a charade. Most of the rest of the world recognizes this. You cannot expect other nations to abide by international law, if the US continually defies, breaks, and sabotages it at every turn. You cannot expect the world to take you seriously in your calls for respect of human rights and freedoms, when you yourselves are seen as the greatest violators of these rights and freedoms. It’s one big sham. The rest of the world has seen through the lies and illusions for quite some time, and that IS where the crux of the problem lies. By immediately engaging in tackling, seriously and effectively, even only the first two above points I mentioned, you would most likely see hatred and animosity towards the US drop, in the ME and elsewhere, by AT LEAST 80%. Those are the reasons fueling the whole conflict. The murderous nutcases in Al-Qa’eda and other extremist groups would have zilch to work with, no realistic or convincing platform to work from, if those grievances and problems were remedied and dealt with.

Lastly, I’d like to quote the great Henry David Thoreau, from his essay Civil Disobedience:

“But Paley appears never to have contemplated those cases to which the rule of expediency does not apply, in which a people, as well as an individual, must do justice, cost what it may. If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself.This, according to Paley, would be inconvenient. But he that would save his life, in such a case, shall lose it. This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.”

This advice was admittedly given under very different circumstances, at a different time, etc.. and yet the profound humanistic and moral precepts still hold true vis-a-vis the issues of torture and America’s wars of aggression against other (mostly weak and defenseless) nations.

Btw, you still did not answer my questions, which were specifically different than some of the strong and convincing arguments made by a couple of the other commentators. Since there is ample evidence, equal to if not stronger than the evidence linking Afghanistan to 9-11, that the US has in the past and present, supported, funded, and trained terrorist organizations (groups), at times on US SOIL, would you agree that the countries affected by the terrorism coming from said organizations, have a moral or legal right to mount military attacks against the United States for its sponsoring of terrorism? Does this follow your logic or not? If not, please explain why and in which way it differs from your own propositions.

A few other really revealing and intuitive quotes from the same essay by Thoreau:

” Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys,(5) and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power?”

“The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus,(7) etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be “clay,” and “stop a hole to keep the wind away,”(8) but leave that office to his dust at least”

“All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.”

X has fair reason to believe Y may know who will blow up a hotel by a certain time while everybody therein is innocently sleeping, some 200 souls, and what the explosion plan details are. Y maintains he doesn’t know, despite lots of questioning by X’s teams, using every psychological ploy and threat. X also has read the experts tales that torture doesn’t work, that people will say anything to have the pain stop after a certain point if they somehow remain or regain consciousness. So, X knows if he increases the torture, it might at most give him a lie to pursue while the hotel explodes. But the clock is ticking, ticking. Not only are the hotel denizens innocent, some of them are part of X’s family. What should X do? Give up? Push the level of torture up?

But this is, at most, a secondary issue. The real issue is one of morality and justice, i.e. even IF torture were effective as a means of extracting critical information that would save lives, it would still be wrong.

There are many things that can be deemed effective and yet are wrong. A dictator who violently suppresses a rebellion, with tanks, helicopter gunships, guns, etc… may be seen to be effective, in that he achieves his stated goals of crushing any resistance to his power, and remains himself in power. This, however, does not make it right or justifiable. The examples are nearly endless.

Well you sound like a damn fool. Where were you prior to invasion of Iraq when all the upper US command were saying getting the 911 AQ perps should be a ‘special forces ops operation’ and not a fucking ‘Wur’ and invading countries?
Huh?….
And I can legitimately condemn torture for three good reasons:
1) It’s against the Geneva Conventions
2 ) The US military “itself’ is officially bound to recognize those rules…even to the point that if ordered by a superior officer to do something against those rules or that would be constitute a war crime he must refuse the order.
3) Torture doesn’t work.

And the torture that took place particularly in Iraq did have consequences >>>>>>>BAD ONES…for the US soldiers.

You guys are wasting your breath, or your keystrokes, or something. Colin knows he is right because THE TV AGREES WITH HIM!!! What more does a man need to attain complete moral, ethical, and spiritual certainty? And didn’t scientists determine that the ultimate laws of the universe is a melodramatic Manichaeism?

“And didn’t scientists determine that the ultimate laws of the universe is a melodramatic Manichaeism?”
yup and as above “backwardness” is a moral issue that allows us to allocate worth and rights to “peoples” and states as we know only advanced people are in a position to witter on meaninglessly about the relative merits of cultures (ours is always the best obviously, otherwise how could we judge) and with the great breadth of awareness that naturally results from membership of an elite culture i wonder have they yet decided whether Standing Bear was in fact a person? well if he is, at least we can be confident that Arabs are not quite the full shilling as it were, its ok its a culture (about which we know little) and political thing not a race thing, eh phew! for a second there i was a little uncertain.
co-incidentally European (American, Israeli) exceptionalism is the most blood soaked, misery producing ideology in human history, thank god most of the victims were from low-grade cultures and societies, thank god for small mercies, and of course the epic (and continuing) slaughter should not be added to the account of humanities supreme culture, its perfection unsullied by thoughts of its innumerable but vicious “backward” victims.

So a crime committed by a handful of mostly Saudi men justified the use of torture against people in Iraq? I wonder what level of torture could be inflicted “justly” on the people of America in reaction to the crimes it committed against the people of the scores of nations it has attacked militarily over the last 50 odd years?

For what it’s worth, I would have smiled at McCain’s comment, taking it to be a circumlocutory way of saying exactly the opposite, a common linguistic practice when PC was young and the word ‘challenged’ meant deficient.

“All attempts to destroy the Jewish people have failed, as will yours if you try to force Israel to give up our holy cities, if you try to destroy our religion, our belief. Just as the Nazis failed in their holy war, so will you.”

Every time I see this kind of rant from some zio like Rosen all I can think of is Famous Last Words ……they are digging their own graves.

and what’s truly disheartening, american, is the glipse you get into the psychology of these types. i’m sure his conscious intent was to refer to the resilience of his people, but no one race or religion is immune to extinction. it’s all biology and blood to the likes of rosen, and he winds up describing his people as if they were cockroaches perservering through a nuclear winter while other weaker species die off. talk about self hate.

@ American
The irony may be in that the Nazis did not fail because of Jewish power, but Israel is on the road to failure due to Jewish Power. The problem for Americans is that Israel is dragging the USA down too.

Before everybody loads on me, I think it is about time foolishness takes a front seat and let those who think they can promise and say anything they want finally face the consequences of their foolishness.

My first event I would forward to is moving the embassy to Jerusalem which in fact makes it the capital of Israel. The fall out in the Arab world would make the so called
Arab spring seem like a picnic at the pyramids. Never mind Egypt and Tunisia, the Saudis, qataris, and all gulf nations would face their worst nightmare. With American bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and UAE, I would not want to be a westerner in any of these countries. Might actually be worth having a real fool running the US.

I also think it’s time to bring all matters to a head.
Let all the crazy hang out and run wild as they can.
Until a blowback rises up and puts them down.
That’s what’s going to have to happen imo.
We’ve passed the point of incremental changes being possible in the US.

Nothing cuts any ice with me until it happens.
And I didn’t say it would be good.
I said we’re pass any incremental changes.
Because ——if you were to pull out one thread of US corruption it would pull down hundreds of attached corrupt threads and cause a crisis in whole set up and system.

You might just be right about that. Mitt may as well come from Mars, given the little he knows about I-P history and the nuances and impact abroad of US foreign policy, most especially in the Middle East. He’s like a really awkward, wooden guy trying to follow the footsteps painted on the floor of an Arthur Murray dance floor. Maybe he thinks advantages will trickle down to everyone he doesn’t really care about who are not keen on him becoming POTUS? In short, that’s his version of “doing the right thing.” Yet a good salesman convinces himself first, at least for the time it takes to make his spiel to customers. He doesn’t even appear to do that, as pundits on all sides of the aisle constantly note.

Before everybody loads on me, I think it is about time foolishness takes a front seat and let those who think they can promise and say anything they want finally face the consequences of their foolishness…”

The problem with this is that you seem to assume you’re still wrapped in that perfect shield of American immunity.

You aren’t. Somebody like Romney takes the helm, it’s fairly easy to construct a scenario where millions wind up dying, terrorist attacks are endemic, everyone’s economy is in collapse, and we’re drafting kids to fight in Iran. Ideology aside, things go objectively to hell — for all.

Whatever the educational value of all this, we can’t afford it. It’ll suck for everyone — including you.

You’re absolutely right Colin. However, many of the resulting victims may actually be “us”. Sounds a little more fair to me than many of the victims are “them”. After all if we’re the fools who elect a fool why should they pay for our stupidity. My note was meant to say, it we’re going to elect a fool, then WE should pay the price.
Do you remember the days we built bomb shelters, how do you fight terrorists in our backyards. I bet you the Syrians never thought they would have to do this, maybe we should be watching them and learning, it could be our survival and our future, brought to you by the fools we put in the white house.
Amen.

We elect Romney and we (and everyone else) gets our just (and unjust) desserts. You get blown out of the sky while flying to your sister’s wedding. You lose your job and find yourself fighting for a spot in the day labor line down at Home Depot.

It means you — and millions of at least equally innocent Palestinians, Iranians, and just about everybodies — suffers a great deal. In all probability, to no particular purpose, since mythology notwithstanding, suffering isn’t actually good for the soul. It makes people worse, not better.

Well, Colin, maybe a little torture is what’s needed to prevent things from blowing up? Don’t you think torture is required in a situation which could be much more serious than 9-11?
And most of all, don’t you think instituting torture is the sign of a country on a healthy path to overcoming its problems?

The answer is simple, and it’s “not that”. And that’s what I did instead, and I got by very nicely. What’s your proof torture was a successful thing to do? “24” got some exciting episodes out of it? The people who did the torture told you they got some valuable information from it? Which they would let us judge, but it’s secret?

And BTW Colin, who is “we”? You know, the “we” who is doing the torture. Do you identify with it personally that much (unless, of course, you were, or are employed as a torturer)? Are you saying you started torturing people? Maybe accusing your wife or kids of being AL Queada, and before you knew it you had doubled your water bill? And I still don’t understand why you, Colin Wright, think that it won’t be you who is being tortured next? Cause you’re the right color? Cause you mouth the right shibboleths to the right Gods? Because you click off the neatest and most sincere salute when the flag goes by, always making sure your ardor is noted by the powers-that-be?
But of course, we look in vain, in every dusty corner of human history, and we never ever see torture being used for anything like that! It’s only ever been used when the most compassionate and intelligent people agree it is sadly, justified. And of course, for the sake of integrity and responsibility, they will administer it themselves.

Oh, well, Colin, this is your mind on TV. Hey, if torture gets your ziocaine going, don’t let me stand in the way of your kicks.

Nations, peoples, and individuals don’t move on from failure to success. They move on from failure to worse failure.

The Germans responded to the Depression with Naziism.

The Jews responded to the Holocaust with Israel.

The Russians responded to Tsarism with Stalinism.

The South responded to defeat in the Civil War with the KKK.

The assumption seems to be that if we head into an era where gas is $12.00 a gallon, terrorist attacks are happening monthly, and we’re mired in a completely futile war in Iran, that we’ll wake up and see the light.

To take an example from our own history, consider the Great Depression.

What were the various responses?

Aimee Semple McPherson, Father Coughlin, Huey Long…

It makes one realize that Franklin Roosevelt was actually a conservative, saving us from our own lunacy.

I don’t want to try ‘busting it up real bad’ and seeing what happens.

The Dark Ages, that’s what’ll happen. No thanks.

People do not learn from their mistakes. Therefore, it is a bad idea to encourage them to make them in the first place. Virtues such as reason, tolerance, compassion, etc are practiced by safe, secure, affluent people — not cornered, frightened, impoverished people.

Bit of a selective list there Colin. Its such a shame the abolitionists fought against slavery, peasants fought against their feudal landlords and that anyone wasted their time fighting the Apartheid regime in Sth Africa. There were no improvements as a result of those things EVERYTHING just got worse.

But Brad we already had a real fool running the US (he even got reelected!) and nothing changed except that our tax dollars kept on going to bombs destined for Afghani and Iraqi men, women, and children. What makes you think things would change this time around?

Following is just hitting the wires: Romney´s press speaker, after hearing in Poland some questions from reporters he did not like, said the following, “Kiss my a… and F… yourself” loud and clear.
A great staff he has with him, they sure know how to discredit their boss.

“All attempts to destroy the Jewish people have failed, as will yours if you try to force Israel to give up our holy cities, if you try to destroy our religion, our belief. Just as the Nazis failed in their holy war, so will you.”

It is racist, criminal, and childish by its nature. But that aside, look at the facts: the jewish population in the world is now about 0.1%. Nothing to do with Palestinians or President Abbas. Just demographic facts. So Rosen is either an ostrich or has no brains. (hmmmm… gotta google how much of a brain an ostrich has!)

Now back to what that guy romney said, my comments:

1) He FAILED the test of presidential leadership in a BIG way. He is an embarrassment to the decent people of the United States of America.

2) He does not understand that government is called “government” not “business” because one does NOT run a government as a business. Doing so ruins the social fabric and social contract that ties purely separated individuals into a common cause and entity called a NATION. Businessess do NOT build or preserve or expand nations.

3) His comment on culture (which now he denies implied anything or was meant to point at Palestinian culture… WTF, does he thing we’re stupid???) means countries with higher GDP than the USA (which ones? Brunei? Lybia? Saudi? don’t have the data with me now) do have a SUPERIOR culture to that of the USA. Pure rubbish and stupidity. Only incompetent, ineptitude can pour out such trash.

4) We Palestinians are SURVIVORS and WILL PREVAIL at the end because our fight is just. Justice always wins. And in case you did not read the paper or watch the news for the past 60 years or so, our economy is not strong since we are OCCUPIED by a criminal regime that chokes everything we do – economically, culturally, mentally, physically, socially, educationally, etc. etc. etc. An economy cannot be built under these conditions. In fact, it is MIRACULOUS what we Palestinians have been able to achieve under the occupation of zionist israel.

5) When I read romney’s comments about Palestinian culture and “providence”, I was not terribly surprised given that this guy romney comes from a very highly privileged white family and his cultural base is relatively limited to the mormon sect which, till today (2012) still allows a man to marry multiple wives even to marry his own daughter. I just wonder where this guy romney would place a hypothetical nation that is based on the mormonic cultural?

6) Last but by no means least, conducting a zionist and zionist christian fundraiser on foreign soil is criminal. the criminal zionist state of israel is not the 51st state of the USA. Shame on you! You have acted beneath the dignity and goodness of the American people and have sullied the integrity of the Office of the President of the United States by blatant and ugly pandering to zionist money (not to mention to the Catholic vote through the other blundered visit in Poland…. as if US Catholics will vote for a mormon, ha). You must be disqualified from the presidential race.

“and his cultural base is relatively limited to the mormon sect which, till today (2012) still allows a man to marry multiple wives even to marry his own daughter.”

Gosh, I’m really leery of the Mormon Church myself, but are you sure of this? I thought polygamy was banned by the LDS Church, and practiced only by a few splinter sects. And of course, there are always individuals, guys who are gluttons for punishment, but that’s everywhere. I’d think you would want to be really sure of this before you said it. Can you supply a citation or reference?

I haven’t seen this fact mentioned in the back and forth over economic performance and “Palestinian culture”:

Most Palestinians are poor in the West Bank and Gaza under Israeli occupation, but remarkably successful economically and educationally everywhere else. The Gulf states could never have developed — even with oil wealth — without the contribution of Palestinian brain power and business acumen. In the US Palestinians are also disproportionately educated and successful as an immigrant community.

I might also add that in Jordan, where Palestinians have usually been marginalized from the centers of power where they are routinely excluded from government jobs, they have gone to alternative fields of work. As a result, when Jordan’s economy suffered in recent years, it was Palestinians in Jordan who were economically better off than their so-called ‘Hashemite’ compatriots.

An alien culture of racism and brutality . They came from over the sea.
The Palestinians are doing ok considering. They get the important things right- passing on their language to the next generation, educating them about Jerusalem, keeping going, investing in education, resisting.

What world class cultural works has Israel produced recently other than sub sub Mariah Carey crooning ?

Gosh, it must be so exciting to shop in Israeli supermarkets and listen to chosen person music.

Imagine for a second if the shoe was on the other foot. If Barack Obama had a well-connected, wealthy donor who had called Israeli society “pathological” and Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu “evil.”

I wonder if Mitt secretly understands the destructive economic role of the seige/occupation, and, inside Israel itself, the destructive economic role of double standards in implementing facially egalitarian laws, not to mention the matrix of facially discriminatory laws? I know he knows he just reaped $1 million in campaign donations in Israel. Just another sign to him he’s a member of the higher culture I guess.

Mondoweiss in Your Inbox

Get Mondoweiss delivered directly to your inbox every morning and stay up to date with our independent coverage of events in the Middle East!

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.